On one hand, this should be obvious...

... but on the other hand, it might not be to some, so it's good that John Norton, editor of Our Sunday Visitor newsweekly, points it out:

Assorted Catholic voices have been raised lately calling on Catholics to give President-elect Obama a chance and look for common ground between him and the Church. Part of the message is: "Don't worry about the Freedom of Choice Act."

Among those saying these things are the editors of Commonweal, the National Catholic Reporter, Professor Douglas Kmiec, and former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See Thomas Melady. In principle, they're partly right. In practice, they could hardly be more wrong, especially where FOCA is concerned.

Ambassador Melady, who says he voted for John McCain, makes the case for "engagement" with Obama in an opinion piece on NCR online. Despite differences between Obama and the Church on abortion and education vouchers, he says, there is a "clear convergence" on things like poverty, health insurance, and ending race-based discrimination.

Who can argue with engagement? But it takes two to engage. Obama may yet get to that in his relationship with the Catholic Church, but there's no sign of it happening now.

Instead, in both his cabinet choices and his White House staff picks, the president-elect has so far been busy loading up his administration with pro-choicers, including Catholics like Tom Daschle (Secretary of Health and Human Services) and Bill Richardson (Secretary of Commerce).

The director of his Domestic Policy Council will be Melody Barnes, a former member of the board of directors of Planned Parenthood. Heading White House communications will be Ellen Moran, formerly executive director of the pro-abortion advocacy group Emily's List.

This, it must be said, is not the path to engagement.

Definitely read the entire piece.

Melady's column for NCR, mentioned by Norton, states:

First of all, we should examine the issues that Mr. Obama raised in the campaign and recognize that on some of them there was a clear convergence with Catholic social justice, which places great emphasis on resolving the challenges of poverty, health insurance for the poor and the elimination of minority-centered prejudice. Racism is an intrinsic evil. The election of an African-American as president of the United States should make all Americans, and especially Catholics, proud of the significant progress our nation has made in reducing this evil.

This talk of "clear convergence" is, I think, rather misleading because it seems to confuse issues of common priority with the principles that will be used to address those issues. Put another way, just because two politicians say they are for fighting poverty doesn't mean they have converged in some obvious manner, especially if one says, for instance, that centralized government and socialism is the answer to poverty, while the other believes that a libertarian, hand's off approach to free markets is the appropriate response.

President-elect Obama has made it fairly clear, in both his previous public work and his talks, that he is a supporter of an increased role on the part of the federal government in handling just about nearly every problem under the sun, including those mentioned by Melady. Catholics have good reason to wonder if an approach that emphasizes even more federal government control and direction is really in alignment with core principles of Catholic social doctrine. (It is also an area in which President Bush failed miserably, to the chagrin of many of his supporters.) The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states:

The permanent principles of the Church's social doctrine [ 341] constitute the very heart of Catholic social teaching. These are the principles of: the dignity of the human person, which has already been dealt with in the preceding chapter, and which is the foundation of all the other principles and content of the Church's social doctrine; [342] the common good; subsidiarity; and solidarity. These principles, the expression of the whole truth about man known by reason and faith, are born of “the encounter of the Gospel message and of its demands summarized in the supreme commandment of love of God and neighbour in justice with the problems emanating from the life of society”.[343]

Especially important, I think, is the principle of subsidiarity, which is not talked about nearly enough by Catholics of nearly every political persuasion:

185. Subsidiarity is among the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church's social doctrine civil society, understood as the sum of the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groupings, which are the first relationships to arise and which come about thanks to “the creative subjectivity of the citizen”[397]. This network of relationships strengthens the social fabric and constitutes the basis of a true community of persons, making possible the recognition of higher forms of social activity[398]. (par. 185) and has been present since the first great social encyclical[395]. It is impossible to promote the dignity of the person without showing concern for the family, groups, associations, local territorial realities; in short, for that aggregate of economic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recreational, professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life and which make it possible for them to achieve effective social growth[396]. This is the realm of

And:

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”[400]. An absent or insufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well. (par. 187)

The Compendium also notes that "[i]n order for the principle of subsidiarity to be put into practice there is a corresponding need for: respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family..." How, exactly, does the support of abortion, contraceptives, and "same sex civil unions/marriages" square with this?

In addition, consider the definition of solidarity, a much-abused and misused term:

Solidarity is also an authentic moral virtue, not a “feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good. That is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all”[418]. Solidarity rises to the rank of fundamental social virtue since it places itself in the sphere of justice. It is a virtue directed par excellence to the common good, and is found in “a commitment to the good of one's neighbour with the readiness, in the Gospel sense, to ‘lose oneself' for the sake of the other instead of exploiting him, and to ‘serve him' instead of oppressing him for one's own advantage (cf. Mt 10:40-42, 20:25; Mk 10:42-45; Lk 22:25-27)”[419].

The fact is, saying that one is against racism, poverty, and lacking health care is one thing; how one goes about addressing those issues and the principles relied upon in doing so is a different matter. Besides, who (other than completely irrational Bush-haters) thinks that President Bush was for racism, poverty, and reduced means to obtain health care? In the end is will be core principles, not convenient posing, that will demonstrate exactly how much of a "clear convergence" does exist and how much a real engagement can take place.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Links, Articles, and Excerpts:

• What Is Catholic Social Teaching? A Review Essay on An Introduction to Catholic Social Teaching | Mark Brumley
• "Can Catholics Be 'Real Americans'?" | Mark Brumley
• On Being Catholic American | Joseph A. Varacalli
• The State Which Would Provide Everything | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Secularity: On Benedict XVI and the Role of Religion in Society | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Speaking Up For Life | An Interview with Deirdre McQuade, the USCCB's Director of Planning and Information
• On Being Neither Liberal nor Conservative | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• The Role of the Laity: An Examination of Vatican II and Christifideles Laici | Carl E. Olson

Comments

[Tom]

A good case can be made that Obama's whole domestic agenda is an all-out attack on subsidiarity, designed to remove the responsibility for virtuous engagement in civic activity from the citizens at the level appropriate to them and deliver it into the hands of distant bureaucracies controlled by experts, from his health insurance plan to his tax schemes. Technology and management take the place of virtue and charity.

[LJ]

"This will be more successful than the divisive attacks seen in the past several years." What, exactly, is Melady talking about? I am suspicious of anyone who starts talking about being divisive, because it usually means not agreeing with the left.

"A good case can be made that Obama's whole domestic agenda is an all-out attack on subsidiarity..." -Tom

I agree. In this case FOCA is the epitome of such an attack, interfering at the local and state level with laws that have already been passed and tested in court that limit abortion.

Carl, are you aware of any book by a conservative Catholic who has brought together the principles of Catholic social doctrine and placed them alongside the founding principles of America in such a way that a case is made for limited government as the means to achieve the ends of Catholic social doctrine or better yet, as the proper context for Catholics to achieve those goals?
Ignatius Press would not likely have it as it would necessarily be a political book.
It seems to me that such a book, in layman's language, would be a start to unlocking the minds of some knee-jerk big government Catholics who cannot conceive any other way to follow Catholic social doctrine. Clearly, the debate in this past election has shown that they see this as a proportionate reason to vote for pro-abortion candidates.

If nothing like that exists, it should be written.

[Dan Deeny]

Thank you for this information on Catholics, politics, and the abortion business. I read the articles by John Norton and Ambassador Melady. Ambassador Melady has this: "... emphasis on resolving the challenges of poverty, health insurance for the poor and eliminating minority-centered prejudice." I have a few comments. The first point is "...resolving the challenges of poverty..." I recommend that Ambassador Melady, along with other wealthy and influential Catholics, come to my town and start a shoe factory and a leather coat factory. These factories will provide jobs and income enough for modest and sturdy homes. We will also be able to sell these products to other Americans, to export these products, and to compete with the Chinese. That is the first point. The second point is "...health insurance for the poor..." I recommend that Ambassador Melady, and other wealthy and influential Catholics, go out and find families and individuals without health insurance and provide this insurance for them. They and the insured would be responsible for the proper implementation of this insurance. This would be an example of subsidiarity, wouldn't it? That is the second point. The third point is "...eliminating minority-centered prejudice." I am happy to hear that Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden have come out in favor of Ward Connerly's initiative. I hope they, and Ambassador Melady, speak out more often so they leave no doubt of their support for his initiative. The struggle against racism is not over! In this regard, the abortion business must be one of the most diabolical programs ever conceived. I hope Ambassador Melady mentions more often the racist aspects of the abortion business. That is the third point. Hopefully we can all work and pray together to build a just society that includes everyone.

[Fitz]

LJ (and all)

LJ has an interesting point....

To be curt I will make my point by bullet.

#1. The corrosive effects of STATISM on societies.

#2. Europe as a whole and Christian democratic parties in particular (and their success at maintaining non negotiable Church teachings within their respective states)

Along with this #3. The Bishops Conference was ready to throw their support behind the Clinton health care proposal BUT the pro-choice lobby was unwilling to allow the language that would have prevented federal funds for abortion & exceptions for Catholic hospitals and the like..

Now... If my point isn’t clear (it may not be) I would be happy to elucidate.

It should be...unfortunately the FACT of the matter is that greater socialism seems to break down popular will that the modern nation state can be fought when it comes to key human rights issues.

We Feed that beast at our peril.